Early Adopter?  Retrogrouch?  

 Technology. I love it! I hate it!  

I have been called a retro grouch as well as a spokehead. I have been told I have all the new stuff and that I am resistant to any new technology. I say that you should embrace new technology where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The same way other items are judged in life.  

I like to believe I use my brain. It is not better because it is new. It is not bad because it is old. It is not unnecessary because it is new. It is not outdated because it is old. It is what it is. Often that depends on how you are using it.  

New technology is our friend, but sometimes our friends get out of control and make bad decisions. They are our friends because they often are smart and fun (or at least like what we like), but then they make a bad decision in a bar (fight) or in a relationship (another decision/conflict, maybe worse). Bad decisions are human. At times, technology acts human.  

Overall, let me be clear. I am thankful for technology. Advancements in just the last decade have been great but look back a few decades and wow…tires last longer, are more supple, can be had in wider widths and can go without tubes. Derailleurs need less adjusting; they ride inboard and do not snag every branch and they have clutches to keep the chain from flogging my chainstay. Brakes- ahhh brakes – that is another story altogether but thank you for the brake technology. Frames – Bamboo, Steel, Aluminum, Titanium, Magnesium, Carbon – all have made advances. Wheels – they used to be separate components (which I miss) but now come as a system. They work great. Less truing of wheels, less problems in general. Win. Gears – more of them is nice; but are we at a point of diminishing return? Internal gearing and transmissions. YES please.

But today I want to point out a flaw. I am looking directly you big three – Campagnolo (we have been close for so very long), Shimano (another long and good relationship) and SRAM (I knew you when you were gripshift and was not a fan but am now – baby you have come a long way!). I believe in a future where everything is internal and living in our bottom bracket area. I also believe that cyclists will look back at our technology and snicker. Why? We took a system that literally derails the chain and, to make it better, just made it electronic and thus more precise at derailing the chain. Progress it is. Are we near the end of the optimization of that system?

The good. Thanks to those of you that now make your electronic groups – road, mountain and gravel – that are interchangeable and all work together. Thank you.  

I have a few areas of improvement I would like to suggest. First, a disclaimer. I own multiple bikes.  Surprise. I own bikes that run Campagnolo, Shimano and SRAM with cabled and electronic shifting, and I enjoy each of them. Now onward.  

Let us start with mountain bikes.  

We have some choices. I can run SRAM shifting and Shimano Brakes if I hate DOT fluid (I do) but love the shifting of SRAM. Or, maybe I love the opposite. Great. Choice is great. What I am saying is that I (the consumer) can choose gearing and braking independently. That is my choice. That also puts the manufacturers ‘on point.’  Meaning that if a company lacks in one area, then sales in that area will decrease. Forcing them to ‘shore up’ and get back on track. Good for them, good for me.  

BUT let’s look at the road world. It is more limiting. I want to run SRAM Gears and Shimano Brakes – nope. Shimano gears, SRAM Brakes – nope. Campy with either – nope. Why? I hear you, integration makes things work best since they were designed as a unit. I call bull. 

But you ask how I am ok with wheels built as a unit. Yes, I am because a wheel is a unit, and braking and shifting are separate. Or should be separate. How are they separate? You do not need both to ride. You can put gears on your bike and no brakes, the gears work great – go ride (carefully – preferably in a controlled environment). You can put brakes on your bike with no gears and the brakes work great – go ride. You cannot put a hub on your bike without spokes and it work great (not to ride it at least). 

Back to our topic.  

Putting brakes and gears together forces the consumer to decide on one group (manufacturer) and allows the manufacturer to ‘not’ move tech as much as possible in each area; to allow weak areas to stay in the system. If road bike components were like mountain bike components and people could choose one brake system and one shifting system from separate manufacturers, then we would see who is best in each area. It is electronic. You can do that. You can disassociate the braking system from the shifting system and sell them separately. I hear you say, “but that is not good for the manufacturer.”  Is it not important to serve the consumer? To provide them with the best product and flexibility? It is more important to serve profits and provide only the most return on investment regardless of how that hampers the product? What about vision and progress?

I suspect I have succeeded in making most of the world mad. Definitely SRAM/ Shimano/Campy, but also the die-hard fans all hate me now. Microshift and the other’ little’ guys are probably going – YEEESSS!!!!   Just because I am not speaking about them by name does not mean they are not in the crosshairs. Listen close because I am speaking about all those that make components for a bike.  

I am calling you all out. Be brave and separate the systems. Brakes separate from Shifting. Attach the shifting button where you want it. Maybe make it open source and only disassociate the shifter from the derailleur but leave the shifting button on the lever. I know – scary. Because if it were open source the only reason the consumer would purchase your product is if it were superior; and that is scary. If you are not confident you can make the best, then the best option is not to allow any other options except the one you make.  

I agree, open source is going too far. The big guys put the money into research and the little guys jump on and make the money with no research further inhibiting future research and development. I understand, I am not anti-capitalism. I think that if a company makes a better product, they should reap that reward. It does not have to be open source – license it out. Think outside of the lever (box). Think about the consumer rather than yourself. All these companies did that when they were young upstarts. 

Remember Gripshift?

Think about it even further.  As we move from wired to wireless electronic shifting our options grow. Brakes are brakes. May the best brakes win. Gears are gears and may the best gears win. Electronic shifting software is licensed out. The buttons for shifting can be separate, or leave the button on the brake levers but allow it to pair it with any brand derailleur. Heck – you could have one brand front derailleur and another brand on the rear. Wow! Choice. Derailleur manufacturer might lose sales for brakes but make money on licensing. If their brakes were best, then people would buy them also and it would be all their brand anyway. It pushes manufacturers to be the best in all areas.  Yep – I am living in a fantasy world. One where innovation is rewarded with market share which also brings $$$. Which manufacturers are willing to go there? I am an optimist.  

Actually, as far as I am aware, there are a few bright starts. A Shimano shifter will shift a Classified Hub. Thanks.  SRAM just introduced a shift button that needs no lever to work. Thanks. Now, let’s keep going.  Good start you three – gold stars for each. 

Tell me. Are you cheering? Jeering? Can see my dream? See limitations I do not see?  Please – share your thoughts/shouts/support/opposing viewpoint …